So, in conclusion: If your face is large, you’re a conservative; if it’s skinny, you’re a liberal; and facial recognition is bad—we all know that. That seems to be all you need to know.
The paper:
Our results, suggesting that stable facial features convey a substantial amount of the signal, imply that individuals have less control over their privacy. The algorithm studied here, with a prediction accuracy of r = .22, does not allow conclusively determining one’s political views, in the same way as job interviews, with a predictive accuracy of r = .20, cannot conclusively determine future job performance.
r=0.22 is a weak to moderate correlation, btw. An actual predictor will need more data than just one's face in order to have a decent chance.
It almost seems like someone did a linear regression, when a logistic regression model would be more appropriate.
What's amusing to me is that they referred to the job interviewer having similar reliability, but didn't say whether it was good or not. Purely let the bias of the article imply that they were highly reliable.
you're putting mental traits in the same bucket as political leaning?
this is not at all what the study is about...
They are both mentalities.
And while political affiliation is a weaker mentality trait than tendency for crime, that only makes it more impossible to determine.
Apart from some possible minor differences in things people do themselves, like how they have their hair or makeup.
But that can never be definite, since it's a matter of fashion.
They are both mentalities
Who defines political orientation as a property of the brain? It's socially established.
So is crime, ultimately both stem from a sense of self interest vs right and wrong, or lack of it.
idk what Phrenology or crime have anything to do with the study and I'm yet to see an argument for it
The headline is clearly false, you can't tell political affiliation just by looking at a persons face.
Maybe in USA you have a slightly better chance than random, because age and gender alone will give a statistical difference. But the claim of the headline remains false.
The claim of the headline is reiterated in the article:
A study recently published in the peer-reviewed American Psychologist journal claims that a combination of facial recognition and artificial intelligence technology can accurately assess a person’s political orientation by simply looking at that person’s blank, expressionless face.
Further down:
So, according to this theory, if you have a tiny face, you’re probably a progressive. Or, by contrast, if you have a big fat face, there’s a good chance you might be a Trump voter.
This simply can't be true, if it was the attempt at a Phrenology/Craniology science would have detected it 200 years ago.
100% a response to the headline, which clearly must be false
It is, my bad - I thought that was obvious. The headline and the article conclusion contradict the study itself, it's just clickbait.
But the study is not invalid because of it.
Phrenology is bullshit. Race has been shown to correlate with political leaning several times and it's encoded as facial attribute. Also correlate income, education, and location.
It turns out that people in similar situations want similar things from their governments. It also turns out that a history of oppression based on race tends to put people from that race into a similar situation. And so on.
The correlation isn't coming from anything specific to the face, but clues about what demographic that individual could be from.
Absolutely not, social status yes, but oppression of a race, doesn't mean the race has a tendency, only that they are pressured into a social status that has that tendency.
You're the one bringing oppression and phrenology, that's not what the study is about.
Sure, AI can do anything, but can it tell us why kids love the taste of Cinnamon Toast Crunch™️?
Sugar. It's the metric fucktons of sugar.
Or how many licks it takes to get to the tootsie roll center of a tootsie pop?
What's the accuracy? About 50% AKA random chance?
about 98% 50% of the time
jokes aside, this is just another clickbaity headline that distorts the actual conclusion of the study
This is obviously a lie. The only thing you can tell about a person by looking at their face is whether they are a cop or not. More thumb shaped more likely they are a cop. /s
According to this analysis—and, I have to warn you, it’s kinda funny—liberals and conservatives have markedly different facial morphology. Liberals have “smaller lower faces” and “lips and noses [that] are shifted downward,” and chins that “are smaller” than conservatives, researchers write. Researchers repeat the key conclusion later on: “liberals tended to have smaller faces.”
So, according to this theory, if you have a tiny face, you’re probably a progressive. Or, by contrast, if you have a big fat face, there’s a good chance you might be a Trump voter.
“liberals tended to have smaller faces.”
Charlie Kirk clearly wasn't in that training set.
I don't believe it at all
I'm not giving gizmodo a click, but I'd be happy to read the study if anyone has a link. Mostly I want to know if they controlled for weight. There is a correlation between urban, liberal, and healthy, and between rural, conservative, and overweight.
Looks like they did control for those factors, but I didn't keep reading as far as the exact methodology. Fascinating nonetheless!
We demonstrate that political orientation can be predicted from neutral facial images by both humans and algorithms, even when factors like age, gender, and ethnicity are accounted for. This indicates a connection between political leanings and inherent facial characteristics, which are largely beyond an individual’s control. Our findings underscore the urgency for scholars, the public, and policymakers to recognize and address the potential risks of facial recognition technology to personal privacy.
"peer-reviewed" bullshit.
I believe it, I'm correct about it like 98% of the time too.
I can tell your political affiliation by looking out of my window: If the clouds are moving to the left...
/s
Lol, and people will gobble this up.
I recall studies that have found correlations to...maybe it was the size of brain structures? (Specifically the amygdala)
I wouldn't be surprised if there were something confounding that resulted in both a larger amygdala and some sort of change in facial structure.
But given that this article misrepresents the findings of the article, I wouldn't put too much weight on it.
sigh
The news:
The paper:
r=0.22is a weak to moderate correlation, btw. An actual predictor will need more data than just one's face in order to have a decent chance.So the headline is 100% wrong.
It almost seems like someone did a linear regression, when a logistic regression model would be more appropriate.
What's amusing to me is that they referred to the job interviewer having similar reliability, but didn't say whether it was good or not. Purely let the bias of the article imply that they were highly reliable.
Bullshit. Phrenology/Craniology was shown to be 100% false more than 100 years ago. It's pseudoscience.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology
Although it's not exactly the same, it is mostly similar.
you're putting mental traits in the same bucket as political leaning?
this is not at all what the study is about...
They are both mentalities.
And while political affiliation is a weaker mentality trait than tendency for crime, that only makes it more impossible to determine.
Apart from some possible minor differences in things people do themselves, like how they have their hair or makeup.
But that can never be definite, since it's a matter of fashion.
Who defines political orientation as a property of the brain? It's socially established.
So is crime, ultimately both stem from a sense of self interest vs right and wrong, or lack of it.
idk what Phrenology or crime have anything to do with the study and I'm yet to see an argument for it
The headline is clearly false, you can't tell political affiliation just by looking at a persons face.
Maybe in USA you have a slightly better chance than random, because age and gender alone will give a statistical difference. But the claim of the headline remains false.
The claim of the headline is reiterated in the article:
Further down:
This simply can't be true, if it was the attempt at a Phrenology/Craniology science would have detected it 200 years ago.
It is, my bad - I thought that was obvious. The headline and the article conclusion contradict the study itself, it's just clickbait.
But the study is not invalid because of it.
Phrenology is bullshit. Race has been shown to correlate with political leaning several times and it's encoded as facial attribute. Also correlate income, education, and location.
It turns out that people in similar situations want similar things from their governments. It also turns out that a history of oppression based on race tends to put people from that race into a similar situation. And so on.
The correlation isn't coming from anything specific to the face, but clues about what demographic that individual could be from.
Absolutely not, social status yes, but oppression of a race, doesn't mean the race has a tendency, only that they are pressured into a social status that has that tendency.
You're the one bringing oppression and phrenology, that's not what the study is about.
Sure, AI can do anything, but can it tell us why kids love the taste of Cinnamon Toast Crunch™️?
Sugar. It's the metric fucktons of sugar.
Or how many licks it takes to get to the tootsie roll center of a tootsie pop?
What's the accuracy? About 50% AKA random chance?
about 98% 50% of the time
jokes aside, this is just another clickbaity headline that distorts the actual conclusion of the study
This is obviously a lie. The only thing you can tell about a person by looking at their face is whether they are a cop or not. More thumb shaped more likely they are a cop. /s
Charlie Kirk clearly wasn't in that training set.
I don't believe it at all
I'm not giving gizmodo a click, but I'd be happy to read the study if anyone has a link. Mostly I want to know if they controlled for weight. There is a correlation between urban, liberal, and healthy, and between rural, conservative, and overweight.
https://awspntest.apa.org/fulltext/2024-65164-001.html
Looks like they did control for those factors, but I didn't keep reading as far as the exact methodology. Fascinating nonetheless!
"peer-reviewed" bullshit.
I believe it, I'm correct about it like 98% of the time too.
I can tell your political affiliation by looking out of my window: If the clouds are moving to the left...
/s
Lol, and people will gobble this up.
I recall studies that have found correlations to...maybe it was the size of brain structures? (Specifically the amygdala)
I wouldn't be surprised if there were something confounding that resulted in both a larger amygdala and some sort of change in facial structure.
But given that this article misrepresents the findings of the article, I wouldn't put too much weight on it.